By David Futrelle
Incels aren’t really very good at the whole “humor” thing. Last week, I wrote about the “Imaginary Girlfriend” meme in which an earnest stick-figure woman declares that if she hadn’t been aborted she could have grown up to be every incel’s dream girl. “Sorry I couldn’t be there for you,” she says. “But my mom had other plans … would have liked to have a lot of kids with you.”
*Shudder*
To me, the meme looked more like the work of a troll doing a pitch-perfect parody of incel logic than an actual incel meme, but a lot of other people thought it looked real, and it certainly could be. One of these people tweeted this:
https://twitter.com/BobbieA10284800/status/1018114427705585665
Well, long story short, some incel found the tweet and posted it to the Braincels subreddit. And the incels there, not all of whom knew what she was referring to, lost their shit.
![fuckbitchesman 36 points 1 day ago Baby killing whore. Burn in hell. permalinkembedunsavereportgive goldreply [–]Zyklon_Bae 23 points 1 day ago Women are soulless Golem. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]Bobodzadza 14 points 1 day ago Fact](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/dr7ct8yiu.png?resize=499%2C444&ssl=1)
Huh. Not having a baby when you don’t want to have a baby seems pretty logical to me.
One fellow fantasized about beating her up — and her liking it.
This lovely fellow suggested genital mutilation:
Still others reminded us that most incels are only a step or two away (if that) from being straight up Nazis.
Lovely.
Naturally she gained some new fans on Twitter as well, some of whom also appear to be Nazis or near-Nazis.
Ending your genetic line and damning yourself to Hell to own strangers on the internet, such a typical white woman thing
— YUNG W!GNAT (@gnat_w) July 17, 2018
https://twitter.com/Archeon_/status/1019045553139838977
https://twitter.com/FashKermit/status/1019260806779809792
I’m still not sure why posting a picture of a delicious looking Arby’s roast beef sandwich, intended to suggest that a woman is a “roastie” who has had so much sex that her labia have mysteriously grown larger and more roast-beef-like, as if that’s really a thing, is considered an “own,” even by these idiots. Sex is good; Arby’s roast beef sandwiches are good. The two of them together would be fantastic, with the only real drawback being the slight danger of getting horsey sauce on a tender area.
It remains funny to me, in a sad sort of way, that incels — whose personalities are basically a collection of red flags — have managed to convince themselves and each other that women hate them for their looks.
Better than that, bio-printing hopes to literally create them from your own genetic template & some stem cells, meaning no rejection issues.
I found it! The article that talks about how anti-abortion sentiment in the religious right only started bubbling up in the 70s, after it no longer became unassailably moral to oppose desegregation/civil rights and evangelicals needed something else to be self-righteous about that people might actually believe:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133.html
Dvärghundspossen: Point taken, but a large of them think science is evil, so not so likly. I also don’t know if we have a problem lets use a lot of money on it, will help.
Reminds me on a stupid republican who wanted to criminylise those women who lost their child.
Kupo: Okay the USA has the problem worse. (I am not sure if the case you made as an example was know when the first person I think of had her two miscariages, but our health care here is good)
A few notes that didn’t fit neatly into my post:
Thank you @Katamount for the elegant explanation regarding the differences between the potential of a fetus and the actuality of a person.
There is an argument to be made that organ transplantation is still medically at the human experimentation stage. It isn’t like getting a transplant makes a person “well”. It is possible that many desperate people have been experimented on without any kind of informed consent while these medical procedures were and are being perfected.
Anti-abortion actually began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as part of the medical lobby. At that time, midwives still delivered a huge percentage of babies – and midwives have better maternal and infant survival rates than university trained physicians. Physicians didn’t want to lose all of those juicy fees either. So, the abortion debate began as a way for physicians to be the only ones who could declare when life began and thus when an abortion could be given. This had a side consequence of destroying the profession of midwifery for almost a century. See Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by Kristin Luker.
The profession of social work began as an offshoot of charitable ladies who “helped” the poor. They too wanted power and professional prestige and thus took over the post-war “problem” of unwed mothers.
Social eugenics about all of this began as part of the birth control movement of the early twentieth century, was exported to Nazi Germany and then circled back to the Americas.
Huh, I didn’t know that. I’d like to know more about this! Could you point me towards some articles or authors that could help me learn more?
@ catalpa
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article II(e).
@Alaniel
Sure they do. They can decide not to donate at any point. Sure, there’s a penalty for that, but they don’t have the right to anyone else’s organs, nor the guarantee that there would be suitable organs available anyway. Its a lottery.
That’s a slightly stronger argument. I participate in my local social security net by paying taxes. I don’t get to choose where my taxes get spent.
Midwifery has been under attack since well before the late nineteenth century. Men started to force their way in with new technology like forceps, claiming women were too weak to use them. I’ll find sources later tonight.
@Katiekitten420
I think you deserve those things too.
However.
Deriving all or part of your definition of what is moral from a system whose central person tells you to give away all your stuff, and then not giving away all your stuff, is obviously problematic.
AuntieMameRedux, Alan:
Yes, erasing a culture by transfering a group of children to another culture is a form of genociede.
That doesn’t mean every adoption is.
What of the children whose parents have died and that have no relatives?
Taking away a child from its mother against her will, when their is no danger for the child: crime should be punished harshly.
Quotation strongly needed, can be should be monitored, but nope I know parents who adopted 2 kids from another country, (a boy and a girl) nothing criminal happened there, they just gave both those children a home.
And sometimes it is necesary to take children away from their parents, to protect the child.
I think declaring conception the moment somebody becomes a person is just logistically impossible to enforce. Wouldn’t that mean that the state could and would monitor all women’s entire pregnancy. Wouldn’t it mean that the moment a woman gets a positive pregnancy test she has to register the pregnancy. Like instead of a birth certificate and social security number at birth, you get it a conception certificate and ss number then?
Whether it’s privacy or fetal personhood, outlawing abortion has a potential domino effect.
Considering the overlap between the forced-birth advocates and the small government advocates, I hope that they’d realize that state control of every woman’s pregnancy is an overreach.
OTOH, there are a lot of people capable of holding contradictions in their brain that would make my head feel all asplodey.
@Catalpa:
Moreover, during the Early Middle Ages under the influence of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic Church followed Aristotle’s theories in believing that the soul only entered the fœtus’s body at some point after conception, usually at the “quickening” when its movements became apparent to its mother. Before that, according to Aristotle, in an echo of the “phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny” theories of the 19th Century, the fœtus passed through vegetative (!) and animal states before being infused with a human soul, so in their eyes a miscarriage was no big deal. It was only later with Duns Scotus’s theory of the Immaculate Conception that it became necessary to believe that the soul became infused at point of conception.
According to the Wikipedia article, there is evidence to suggest that the practice of exposing unwanted infants after birth continued for several centuries in the Roman and “barbarian” worlds after their alleged conversion, despite stated Christian opposition to the practice. I guess all that sweet, sweet land and riches bequeathed to the Church was worth the price of overlooking the odd pile or two of dead infants, as we know in Ireland too well…
@VP
They’re only for small government when it comes to helping poor or brown people or women. When it comes to giving handouts to rich white dudes that’s just fine.
@kupo
Oh, yes. But that’s one of those thoughts that makes my head hurt.
Speaking of adoption, Mother Teresa’s organisation is under investigation for selling babies.
I just woke up to get a soda and I realized that I think I’m not being clear here and that’s my fault. Now a days the term pro-life has very specific connotations and the group I am speaking about specifically does not agree with a number of the assumed connotation. For example they do not approve of abortion yes, but if there was a case where the mother was in danger they would say the lesser evil was an abortion because they are pro-life and the mother is already a human life, a walking talking experienced human. Her fetus is just potential life. They are not one of those crazy groups that would say the mother should risk her life to have a 10% chance of maybe a baby surviving because that’s not pro-life that’s ridiculous. The term pro-life has been twisted around so much that it doesn’t actually mean pro-life anymore imo, it’s shorthand for ridiculously ignorant anti-abortion people.
Pro-life is when you want to save as much life as possible and make the quality of those lives as pleasant as possible that is the definition of pro-life in these people’s eyes. That is all. They totally are for teaching sex and contraception and stuff like that. And if the mother’s life is in danger or even her health like something may not kill her but will make her I don’t know a vegetable or something horrible I know very little about pregnancy they would be like abortion is the lesser of two evils.
I know that is not at all what the typical current pro-life people espouse. That is because they are not pro-life that’s just propaganda and advertise it they are nasty people who are anti-abortion and don’t really care about life. I am only talking about people who truly believe that all life is sacred and don’t just talk about it they be about it. For example my mother would never have gotten an abortion but she has friends who have because she feels like those are her moral standards and she has no right to force them on others. That is how you truly do pro-life, these horrible people stole it and ruined the concept in my personal opinion.
Okay I hope this is more clear because people keep refuting me but they’re not refuting things I’m expressing or that I feel, most of the refutations are things I agree with so I’m just very confused and I feel like people are seeing pro-life and making assumptions and not reading every word. I apologize if I’m wrong but that’s really what it seems like cuz I’ve gotten a few answers that literally have nothing to do with anything I said.
Also that bit in the Bible yeah it does say to give away all your worldly possessions if you want to be perfect but it is also an integral tenet of the Bible that humans are flawed, humans are sinners. Jesus could do something like that because he was Jesus. We the human race as a whole are not expected to be perfect so I don’t think it’s saying that we are expected to give up all of our possessions in that verse.
Also yeah I believe in God and Jesus but I don’t do the organized religion thing. I think that’s what ruins it every time. I also thank my concept of God and Jesus is pretty different than the Catholic church doctrine LOL. I also take lots of the Bible with a grain of salt especially the Old Testament cuz it was written by bunches and bunches of people who probably had their own agendas. As a Christian I think the teachings of Christ whether you see him just as a philosopher or the Son of God are definitely worth following or at least attempting to follow cuz as I said no human is perfect. But love thy neighbor do unto others as you would have them do unto you feed the hungry clothe the naked all that good stuff, Jesus definitely had the right idea.
I am not advocating for any of the misogynistic racist or other horrible s*** in the Bible. I think that people are ridiculous Hypocrites and just cherry-pick bits that they like I mean sure take the two sentences about homosexuality and make a huge deal out of it but they mention eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibers as just as bad a sin dozens of times but apparently no one cares. I’m going to sleep for another 2 hours or so. I hope everyone’s having a lovely day
@Dvarghundspossen
Isn’t it more likely that they’ll justify it by declaring fetuses to be persons with rights? And carry on with you don’t have a right to make specific medical decisions that kill other persons? (As is obvious from the rest of the thread I’m staunchly pro choice, but I don’t see why pro-lifers would have a slippery slope problem towards no bodily autonomy for anyone.)
Except that parents generally have the right to make medical decisions for their children. Including unto death when it comes to the Christian Scientists where court decisions There is a slippery slope for you – it could be argued that medical decisions are taken out of the hands of all parents. And from there to spouses – or people with medical power of attorney.
The truth about abortion is that it has been going on for a very long time. The general medical and ethical rule of thumb is that it is all right medically and morally until quickening – which incidentally still lines up with most abortion laws. I sometimes hate this issue because it keeps us from addressing other problems in terms of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. We just keep going over the same ground again and again.
@Katiekitten420
I’m not going to pick an argument on this, but compare:
with previous commenters on this blog trying to declare themselves good MRAs or MGTOWs, as distinct from the raging mysogynist assholes who are most obviously associated with the names.
Problem is, reclaiming a term tainted by association with virulent assholes is very difficult. It is far easier to clearly distance yourself from them, and seek a new term and new branding.
It sucks, and it feels like surrendering to the assholes, but for me at least I’d rather give up the name of a group rather than have them color everyone else’s impression of me. I’m very cautious about calling myself an atheist these days, for example.
@AuntieMameRedux
Please do not paint all adoption with such a large brush. I am not so naïve to think that what you are saying doesn’t happen, I know it does.
And I am not so naïve to say that for sure there were no bad actors doing it for the money in the entire chain of people needed to bring my daughter and me together- I don’t and can’t ever know for certain. And truthfully, it is a lot of money that goes to lots of different people and institutions.
My daughter was already in an institution for a year before she came home, what culture did she lose? The culture that held her of such little value that she was abandoned and declared by the government as a foundling? The culture that abandoned a healthy baby because she was a girl? She gained the culture of a family- worth it so far.
You can’t have both. If you have to make legal exceptions for every possibility where the mother’s life is in danger then every time some weird new scenario comes along you have a person die first before a new exception can be added to the law. So either way, pregnant people die.
Unless you’re saying they don’t believe in enforcing anti-abortion legislation and instead believe it should be left to the individual. In that case, they’re pro abortion. Period. That’s what the term means even if they personally don’t agree with that term being used to describe them.
Pro-life has always been what the group of people who want abortion outlawed call themselves. If you say “pro-life” that’s what everyone is going to assume. I don’t care if someone is personally against abortion but doesn’t want to outlaw it or make it harder to get and stays out of other people’s uteri. But that needs to be clarified right away and probably called something other than pro-life. Because saying you’re pro-life but not trying to force your will upon others is like saying you’re a gamergater who is only for ethics in games journalism but opposes harassment.
We’re getting into “words mean things” territory here.
Yeah, but it’s still hypocritical to try and use the government from preventing some people from committing certain sins while not even holding yourself accountable for committing other sins. You can’t say “it’s a sin to be greedy, but I don’t want to pay a few extra bucks in taxes to feed hungry children, but you can’t judge me, we all sin” and then say “I judge you for wanting to terminate a pregnancy, that’s a sin, and it’s the governments responsibility to prevent that sin from taking place.” Why do so many Christians (yes I know, not all) believe it’s the government’s place to force women to carry pregnancies to term but it’s not the government’s place to stop creditors from charging interest? That’s willfull hypocrisy, not just hey, humans have flaws and sin sometimes.
I acknowledge that in a society in which all children are wanted children and all parents have access to the resources they need to be adequate parents I would never have become a parent myself.
That’s a price I would accept. As it is, my husband and I are being the best parents we can be to the sons we have.
That’s not the same thing. At all. Atheist only ever has meant lack of belief in god/s. There are a vocal minority of atheists who are obnoxious on the internet. That doesn’t mean atheist is defined as asshole on the internet. When non assholes refuse to call themselves an atheist, it just hands the assholes that labels. It does let them win. It also gives the theocratic assholes an excuse to say we are bad people and therefore it’s okay to discriminate against us.
Pro-life is a movement that exists to restrict reproductive freedom. There was never a good or neutral pro-life movement or group that got co-opted by misogynists. It was always a misogynist group.
Please do not equate being an atheist with being a forced birther.
OT: Came across this BuzzFeed article running down the story of Lane Davis, the former Ralph Retort writer who killed his father.
I’ve read a lot of articles about this case, but this is the first one that I’ve seen quotes from those who interacted with Davis, including Ethan Ralph himself. There are some choice and very scary ones.
When I read that paragraph, I wished I could reach through the internet to grab Nora Ralph by the shoulders, shouting “YES! YES THEY ARE THAT STUPID! AND YOU KNOW THEY’RE THAT STUPID! SO CUT IT OUT!”
It’s like they’re on the verge of a self-actualization with every sentence, right up to where Ethan Ralph says:
Truer words were never spoken.